There are humorous and sad stories within the libertarian movement
about Ayn Rand, who was apparently unable to distinguish between the
essential elements of her philosophy, and her own personal, passing
enthusiasms.

At one point, I've been told, Rand rather foolishly proclaimed
that the only form of dancing truly consistent with Objectivism was
tap dancing, and that the most rational dancer of them all was Fred
Astaire. I always liked old Fred, myself, but not as a philosophical
paragon.

Maybe it's easier to see from a distance that Objectivism is an
ethical philosophy, while tap dancing is an artform, and that the two,
within certain broad parameters, have nothing whatever to do with one
another.

But that was then, this is now.

I have pretty much been "out of the loop" for the past month or
so, while I struggle to complete two novels simultaneously. I have
been relying on my wife and daughter, for the most part, to keep me in
touch.

One item that has broken through my self-imposed "cone of silence"
is the embarrassingly dumb pseudo-issue of "thick" versus "thin"
libertarianism. It's an idea almost as stupid as "right" versus "left"
libertarianism.

Read and understand this: a libertarian is a person who believes
that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force
against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a proper
libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone
else.

Individuals who act consistently with this principle are genuine
libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act
consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may
claim.

I call it the "Zero Aggression Principle". Tell me: where's the
"right" and "left" to that? You're either libertarian or you're not.
Period.

If I understand the pushers of this new conceptoid, they believe—and
insist—there must be more to libertarianism than the Zero
Aggression Principle, that we must incorporate into the movement and
its underlying philosophy concerns that properly belong to creatures
who have dirtied the word "liberal" so badly they now call themselves
"progressives".

Since I first became a conscious libertarian, 52 years ago (when
you get to be my age, time flies whether you're having fun or not),
and certainly since the founding of the Libertarian Party, a decade
later, there have always been individuals attempting to redefine
libertarianism—usually downward—to suit their own prejudices and
purposes.

I recall, for example, attendees at an early CLP convention,
demanding from the floor that the party platform not be so negative
about the public school system. This despite the harsh reality that
permitting that institution—underwritten by extortion, staffed by
greedy recipients of stolen goods, populated by slaves relentlessly
brain-washed with socialist propaganda—to continue existing at all
is a blatant violation of the Zero Aggression Principle. They were
public school teachers themselves, you see, and they just knew
that everybody in the system was striving as hard as they could to
make it better.

They were far from the first. Murray Rothbard, among a good many
others, desperately wanted to court the Left and form a coalition of
some kind with them. The trouble is that the Left doesn't stay
courted. In fact, they're rather like ants, which shouldn't be too
surprising. Their rank and file tend to agree with the last person who
spoke to them, and their leaders will use you to advance their
agenda.

All that was forty years ago.

I have always thought, and I believe that history backs me up in
this, that it was a serious mistake to try to establish an Objectivist
aesthetic. Aesthetics are purely arbitrary, a matter of whatever we've
become accustomed to. Look at the way the idealized feminine form has
changed (driven, some say, by the economics of feast and famine) from
the paintings of Peter Paul Rubens to the images of Lesley "Twiggy"
Lawson. Or, over a much shorter span, from Jayne Mansfield to Mia
Farrow.

The purveyors of "thick" libertarianism are making a mistake as
obvious and pathetically foolish as Rand's. They want to take a 987
Porsche Boxter—the sleek, slim Zero Aggression Principle—glue
cardboard shoeboxes, empty coffee cans, and dead cats on it at random,
and herald it as something new and wonderful. But new and wonderful it
ain't.

It's the same old crap.

A short term for "thick" libertarians is "liberals".

I gather that these wimps and losers can't take being members of a
minority that just happens to be right about every social, economic,
and political issue of the day. It makes them uncomfortable to stand
alone. They want libertarians—as such—to have a more "positive"
image, to become tree huggers, to wring our hands over the plight of
the poor, to take Algore's side on globular warming, and to save the
whales.

I don't want to save the whales, I want to eat them.

These specimens know so little of their own philosophy they don't
realize (or have forgotten) that under libertarianism, you'll be free
to hug your own damn tree; that, poverty being a product of
taxation and regulation, under libertarianism there will be no poor;
that environmentalism is a euphemism for fascism; and that animals are
property.

Don't take the bait by saying "thin" and "thick" libertarianism.
That simply hands them the argument. Say "clean" and "cluttered"
libertarianism, instead. Remember the K.I.S.S. principle and keep it
wholly.

Possibly worst of all, these weenies want us to be libertarians
for the "correct" reasons, implying that only utilitarian or
altruistic motives are morally acceptable. One of the reasons I became
libertarian in the first place was thanks to Ayn Rand (whom most of
these people hate, loathe, and despise) who said, "I do not recognize
any man's claim to one minute of my life," and "Your need does not
constitute a mortgage on my existence." Heady—and badly needed—stuff
for a kid going to high school in the suffocatingly religious
South.

All the more necessary now, under Obamunism.

Even kindly old Bob LeFevre horrified middle class housewives in
his audience by saying that if a five-year-old came scratching at your
door during a blizzard, you have no moral obligation to take it in.
(Folks may not like you for it, but you would be within your rights.)
For me, it was like feeling the weight of the world lifted from my
shoulders.

Motives. Andrew Carnegie was a dirt poor Scottish immigrant to
America who, over a lifetime of work, amassed what would amount to
billions of dollars today. This is the guy every libertarian's hero,
Scrooge McDuck, was based on. When he retired, he built a network of
public libraries all over this country which have enabled millions of
individuals to obtain an education they couldn't otherwise have
afforded.

The left has spent many decades trying to tear Carnegie down by
questioning his motives for building all those libraries. I don't give
a rodent's derriere why he did it. Neither should you. If a tremendous
gift you receive is spoiled by your estimate of the giver's reason for
giving it, the solution you need to seek is neither economic nor
political.

It's psychiatric.

If Zefram Cochrane invents the warp drive "only" because he wants
a tropical island filled with naked dancing girls, I say give him the
island.

And invite the girls.

On the other hand, motivations can be important in other contexts.
What I'm looking at here, in this "thin" and "thick" nonsense—and I
have long suspected it of "left" libertarians, as well—seems like
nothing more than a sorry, sophomoric attempt by the libertarian
movement's nerds, geeks, dorks, and goobers to get laid by progressive
chicks.

Probably because libertarian women won't have them.

Lotsa luck, guys.

Was that worth reading?Then why not:

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchasedthrough one of our partner or affiliate referral links. Youalready know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC DisclosurePolicy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)TLE AFFILIATE